metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Lower the percentage in the RfA system
This RfC was closed on 01:28, July 7, 2011 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ }. Final resolution of keeping the percentage at 80%. Please do not modifiy it. ---- Lower the percentage in the RfA system My colleagues and I have discussed how our RfA system is, to put it bluntly, quite bullscheiße. The required percentage of 80% to succeed in the RfA system is the number one hinderance for most people to make it through. My own third attempt would have passed were it not for the percentage, I had more supports tallied than negatives, and yet, it was the percentage that made me fail. In addition, ConstantCabbage's RfA was tied for support and oppose, which, providing he had received more supports, would have certainly made him an admin now. I would like for the percentage to be lowered to 50%. I'd say that, should this RfA pass through, no previous 'violations' should be grandfathered, and maybe my third RfA could possibly be reopened, with all previous voters needing to vote again. *'Question:' Should Wikitroid lower the percentage function in the RfA system from 80% to 50%? *'Possible Postitions:' Agree (if you would like the percentage to be lowered), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that the percentage should be lowered). *'Default (no consensus):' The percentage is unmodified. One last note: say this RfC has been done out of pure selfishness all you want. I did not make it entirely with my third's failure in mind. I want this to go. Think of it! If we actually had a lot of users who were admins, we'd be unstoppable! Vandalism would not be heard of here! Discussion *'Agree:' As RfC creator. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:56, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Disagree:' Community consensus determines who becomes an admin. Percentages don't discriminate. How else would we determine who gets adminship? You want to replace it with what? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:03, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support': I was one of the users that said the RfA system is not the greatest. This is a good example of a good RfA process. RfAs should not be a straight vote count, but rather a decision based on community consensus.Disagree: I misunderstood what Sir Poй was saying. I am not in favour of a straight vote count at all, and if a vote count is necessary, 80% is a good number, not perfect, but better than >50% IMO. Doctor 01:08, June 27, 2011 (UTC) 21:35, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment:' In response to MG: remove the percentages and leave the tally system. I had 10 supports and 5 opposes but if it wasn't for the fact that I needed 80% support for success then I'd be admin. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Large majorities are needed to determine admin, otherwise we could end up with a split community. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:18, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Also, the number of admins has very little to do with the amount of vandalism. It determines how quickly the vandalism is removed. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:19, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*Yes, and number of admins also determines whether or not vandalism is or is not hear of on Wikitroid. Would you rather have more more incidents where you ignore other charges pressed against a user? --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:24, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' That is the responsibility of the VSTF to tell a community's admins. If they don't, oh well. Also, how would admins be determined. You said keep the tally system, but never said the determining factor. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:31, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*Look at my third RfA. The odds were all in my favor with the tallies. Ten supports. 5 opposes. 1 or no neutrals iirc. It was just the damn percentage that kept me from getting admin back. So Ripley and Burke, humans are worse, and you do see them f---ing each other over a goddamn percentage. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:33, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Roy, I was sorta hoping that you weren't doing this entirely for yourself. But quit using your own RfA as a reason, its proving me otherwise. Also, you still haven't said what we would replace it with. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:53, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*We're removing the percentage, and replacing it entirely with the tally system. I said that 5 times. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:54, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' What is the tally system? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 01:55, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :*'Discuss: O.MG.' Look at an RfA, and you'll see the support/oppose/neutral tally, with the support percentage beside it, and a disclaimer saying 80% is required to succeed. The latter part I want gone. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:59, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' AND. If we don't determine through percentage how will we? BE SPECIFIC. Are you saying simple majority, best reasons, what? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:01, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Simple majority. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 02:03, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Well apparently Dr. Pain thought you meant something along the lines of best reasoning. Simple majority wouldn't have gotten ConstantCabbage promoted, it was a tie in the end, and he hasn't been here in a while. As a matter of fact, he would have only gotten another oppose, as I voted against him, but was too late anyways. I disagree with simple majority for the reason that this could cause major community splits. Half of the community might not be happy with the admin. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' That issue is dealt with after the RfA, but you need to give them time. There's no more ChozoBoy, and I'll shut up about him, and I won't go around destroying pages and files as senselessly as a Terminator. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 02:12, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' For the record, no, I do not support simple majority. That wouldn't even technically be removing the percent: it would just be lowering it from 80% to <50%. I simply think that RfAs should be evaluated on an individual basis. Bureaucrats should determine how heavy the support is, how heavy the oppose is, whether the support and oppose reasons are valid and how valid, and whether or not the candidate in question is capable of the job and needs the tools. See this RfR. There are exactly as many supports as opposes, but since the oppose reasons are stupid and the candidate was qualified and needed the tools, rollback was granted. The result of this RfR being passed was in no way negative and the user used their rollback to revert vandalism when the rest of us weren't around. In conclusion, a vote count is not a good way of determining an RfX. Doctor 02:52, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Disagree'- The 80% rule creates a good safety factor. I for one don't want ''Joe Anyone being able to get ahold of block rights if (s)he has polarized 51% support. Adminship is the closest thing this wiki gets to supreme executive power, and it should be handed out more sparingly. ''"My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 03:01, June 27, 2011 (UTC) **I believe that a simple majority is not what we're going for, (and if it is, my vote is changing to oppose). So tbh, your reasoning has no merit. Doctor 03:05, June 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' According to the RfC creator it is. EDIT CONFLICT: Does that mean that there won't be more argumentive people in the future? I guarantee you that there are more people that will cause trouble. In my opinion, we have had awfully low standards in the past. I don't believe I was really fit for adminship when Richard first gave me my userrights. I do believe I have become a better admin since then, but still. I'm in favor of being tougher on candidates. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 03:16, June 27, 2011 (UTC) **I will talk to RoyboyX about his intentions of this RfC. If he wants simple majority, I'll oppose him and propose my own RfC. Anyways, if you want to be "tougher" on the candidates, removing the 80% can actually help that, if the bureaucrats in charge have high standards on what passes and what fails. Doctor 03:22, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ***Yeah, you're being tougher on mostly 13 year olds and chasing them off for being so tough. You scare them, you make them cry, you enforce every possible challenge on them. Like I said, we don't have that large of a community. Plus we'll still have all the other rules of having 500 or so edits, being here for a while and such. These percentages are stupid and should go. Also, AdmiralSakai, you just think that if I get admin rights I'll use them to slap editing cuffs on you when you piss me off. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 12:00, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ***To be honest, the thought did cross my mind. Then I remembered that you realy do want to contribute to this wiki even though I take issue with a lot of the things you do in that contribution, and decided that you wouldn't be that personally vindictive. Please don't prove me wrong. I am more worried about this: you aren't "just anyone". You very nearly became an admin within the existing system. I don't particularly like your policies, but you try to be a contributing member of the community. 80% to 50% is an enourmous gap. At the moment we have a small community where trolls troll reliably and leave after a few days, but that may not always be true. I'm worried what else might come in if we lower the bar by such a huge amount. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 01:14, June 28, 2011 (UTC) *Nothing will, because FL's old rules of having 500 or so edits will still apply. I'm merely in favor of killing %. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 01:28, June 28, 2011 (UTC) **I really feel I must comment. Requirements like "500 edits" and "been here a year" are really dumb as they have nothing to do with RfAs. For example, I was promoted to admin on Donkey Kong Wikia after only a couple of weeks of editing because it was in desperate need of a sysop and I had experience of other wikis. These should be the criteria for judging potential sysops, not edit count or how long one has been on a wiki, though the latter should usually be required anyway except in special cases. Doκτoʀ ''' 03:56, June 28, 2011 (UTC) ***It really isn't about "OH YOU HAVE 500 EDITS" as much as it allows you to get a feel for the character and skillset of the individual by looking through their contributions and interactions with the community. "Will this candidate leave after a month? Does this candidate know what they are doing? Is the candidate a jerk?" Your example is the exception rather than the rule. In cases where there is truly a desperate need of sysops (like your example and my own promotion), requirements are loosened due to the greater immediate need. ***By the way Roy, can you change the RfC description to properly display what you want? You aren't getting rid of the percentage at all, only lowering it to above 50%. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 16:24, June 29, 2011 (UTC) ****Done. --[[User:RoyboyX|Р'o'й'б''''''o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 20:50, June 29, 2011 (UTC) ****Also DP, this is RoyboyX. Poй is just my name translated into Russian. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X''']] (Talk • • UN) 22:17, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *****Yes Royboy, I know. I have a russian sig or two of my own. :P [[User:Dr. Pain 99|Докто'']]рБоль ''' 22:29, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' While I agree with the premise of lowing it from 80%, 50% is far too low. It leaves room for ties or very close wins/losses percentage wise. Mr. Monkey Spanker 22:22, June 29, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Also, looking at the statistics, 9 out of 16 requests for access passed. That is more than half. One could draw the conclusion either that it is easy to gain rights, or that there aren't that many requests in the first place. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:05, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **I hope you realize that as I have said, we do not have a large community since no one really likes Metroid or its femme fatale, and we need more admins as most of the community, regardless of rank, has died (you know what I mean). And I am told by a lot of people (here) that I have the makings of a great admin, my weaknesses are that I am not always willing to discuss stuff. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:17, June 30, 2011 (UTC) ***Small communities do not require nearly as many admins as large ones. Also, it isn't that people don't like Metroid, it is that there isn't anything NEW about Metroid. There aren't any upcoming games or anything. The only upcoming Metroid game is the eventual release of Metroid II to the 3DS virtual console. And even that isn't confirmed, just a guess (It'll probably be on the anniversary). The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:44, June 30, 2011 (UTC) *No but like some bureaucrats such as the one who dominates you all and has gone inactive for a long while (his name pertains to reptilian creatures who move at superhuman speeds in the fourth dimension) oppose because there is no need for admins at the current time. --[[User:RoyboyX|'Р'o'й'б'o'й'X']] (Talk • • UN) 00:57, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **That is a legitimate reason to oppose an RfA. Doctor 01:01, June 30, 2011 (UTC) *So, we getting it lowered or not? Also, testing my new unreadable sig >:D --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 22:43, June 30, 2011 (UTC) **'Comment' So far, you are the only "agree". It doesn't really look like it. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 00:56, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Okay how about 60%? Still high but low. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 01:17, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *75% at the extreme minimum. Although 80% is preferable. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 20:23, July 1, 2011 (UTC) **Alright seriously 80% is too high. Would you agree that 500 points for an NES game in Virtual Console is too high? --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 20:39, July 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Well, NES games in real life cost 2 dollars each. However these are enhanced with temporary save states (going to the wii menu), usually are less buggy, (at least not crash), and don't require ancient technology. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 02:57, July 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Comment' Alright, this is going nowhere, so I say close it with the result of no lowered percentage. However, I'd like for my third RfA to be reopened as one of the votes there should be considered void. However, like the talkheader RfC, everyone should have to vote again. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 00:43, July 7, 2011 (UTC)